There’s been quite a bit of debate in the last few years about guns, but I probably don’t have to tell you that. Some of those arguments have centered on technology that would allow guns to “recognize” their rightful owners, if you will. These so-called smart guns would only work for the person who had the right set of fingerprints or a watch or a ring with a radio frequency ID chip in it.
On the face of it, that’s a fantastic idea. It would keep curious kids from accidentally shooting themselves or others. It could prevent bad guys from taking guns away from policemen or lawful owners and shooting the good guys. It would also pretty much end all theft of firearms.
That last one is really the only thing that’s actually going to happen if the bill introduced by Sen. Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Rep. Carolyn Maloney of New York gets passed. But that’s only because nobody’s going to steal a gun that’s not going to work – either for the rightful owner or anyone else.
The problem with smart technology on guns is that it’s not far enough along yet. If it were, I’d be all for it. But if we can’t even get our cell phones to read our fingerprints on the lock screen, why would we chance it with our guns?
Guns need to work 100 percent of the time, not 65 percent. Heck, not even 99 percent. If you’re struggling with getting your gun to unlock when you need it, you’d be better off unarmed.
Markey and Maloney’s bill would require that within five years, every new gun would have to have smart gun technology. To make matters worse, it also requires that all existing guns be retrofitted before they could be sold.
It would be a great idea in a perfect world, but then, if we lived in a perfect world, we wouldn’t need smart gun technology, would we?
